Newmark:semantic& communicative translation
1. Thesuccess ofequivalenteffect is‘illusory’2. Themost crucial problem intranslation theoryand practice will always be:‘the conflict of loyalties’ and‘the gap between emphasis on sourceandtarget language’The solution?Newmarksuggests narrowing the gapby replacingthe old terms with those of ‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation:
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.(Newmark1981: 39)
1. Thisdescription of communicative translation resemblesNida’sdynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader.2.Newmark’ssemantic translationis similar toNida’sformal equivalence.However,Newmarkdistances himself fromthefull principle of equivalent effect in one case: ‘if the text is out of TLspace and time’. He explains by stating that the effect becomes ‘inoperant’.
1.Newmarkstates that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it ‘respects context’, interprets and even explains (metaphors, for instance).2. Literal translation is the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation:
Incommunicative as in semantictranslation, providedthat equivalent effect is secured,the literalword-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. (Newmark1981: 39)
3. Ifthere is a conflict between the two forms of translation (namely if semantic translation would result in an ‘abnormal’ TT or would not secure equivalent effect in the TL) then communicative translation should win out.Example:beware the dog!vs.dog that bites! and bad dog!communicative vs. semanticFOR A COMPARISON OF NEWMARK’S SEMANTIC AND COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION, REFER TO TEXTBOOK P.45.